asked the Minister for Fisheries if he will outline in detail the matters discussed at the recent EEC Council on Fisheries; the outcome of the meeting and the present position in the negotiations on a common fisheries regime; and the negotiating policy he intends to pursue at future Council meetings on this subject.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC Fisheries Negotiations.
3.
The matters of main interest to Ireland discussed at last month's Fisheries Council were proposals put forward by the EEC Commission for technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources, quotas for 1978, arrangements for the supervision and control of fishing activities, aid measures for reorganisation of the fishing industry and compensation for losses incurred by fishermen due to the closure of herring fisheries.
Decisions were not reached on any of these items and discussions on them are to be resumed at a further council meeting starting next Monday, December 5th. Meanwhile, the proposals are being examined in detail by council working groups.
At the coming meeting, and at any others which take place, my aim will be to secure the best possible terms for the Irish fishing industry.
Would the Minister agree that nothing tangible has resulted from all these talks and negotiations and that the primary matter of Ireland's claim to a 50-mile special zone has not even been discussed up to now and when will the lip-service cease and some positive action take place?
The fact that nothing tangible has emerged is very much in our favour in that other people want tangible results very quickly which would involve the abandonment of our position. The Deputy might try to grab that one.
May I put it to the Minister that Ireland has a special case to make and this case would be best served and most likely would attain success if it were put separately rather than in a package deal involving Britain and perhaps other countries?
I appreciate the Deputy's point. This is a very difficult negotiating position. In some areas our interests coincide with British interests and in other areas they do not. I appreciate part of the Deputy's point.
Is not our case being clouded?
Does the Minister not agree that it was a serious mistake to get in with the British and to negotiate our claim jointly with theirs rather than going it alone? There had been an opportunity for other member states to give something to Ireland which they cannot give to Britain.
I reject absolutely that we are pursuing our claim jointly with the British. That is not the case.
Did the Minister read the press?
The Deputy knows all about what appears in the press. We are negotiating apart from Britain. Our case is being pursued on our own. But there are some areas, like each country looking for a coastal zone—a case not being pursued by the other seven countries—where there is a coincidence or an identity of interests as between Britain and ourselves.
I would point out to Deputies that we will not have a discussion on fishing limits on a question which has no relation to them.
We welcome any help we can get in our negotiations but we are extremely suspicious of Britain's motives in tagging along with us, and I suggest the Minister should be extremely careful. Does the Minister remember declarations made by three British Ministers of State that they would be quite happy with a 12-mile exclusive zone? Surely, negotiating hand in hand with that type of attitude is not for the betterment of our fisheries?
The Commission and the other seven countries do not want any zone at all. Having said that, I agree with the phrase used by the Deputy that our approach should be careful.